Image from StormBringer
I don’t think you understand what ‘atheism’ is.
None of those men had ‘organized atheism’. They had regimes of which atheism was a part of them. So what? Hitler was also a vegetarian and liked dogs. Does that make liking dogs and eating vegetables bad?
Standard atheist cop-out. Can you dismiss this as easily?
Imagine my surprise to see my picture here! Glad you like it.
By the way, I have some things about how evolution is used to justify abortion. There is a link to that article, and others destroying pro-abortion arguments. Interested? If so, here you go: http://asoldierforjesus.blogspot.com/2011/10/abortion-and-conscience.html
“None of those men had ‘organized atheism’. They had regimes of which atheism was a part of them. So what?”…..really?…And just what exactly do U think a REGIME is?
A (communist)’Regime’ is a systematic way of life regulated by certain strict practices and beliefs…..that sounds pretty organised to me.
“A (communist)’Regime’ is a systematic way of life regulated by certain strict practices and beliefs…..that sounds pretty organised to me.”
Sure it is. And it was organized around what they thought communism was. And it included atheism.
Plenty of things include atheism. Just like plenty of things include theism. The Spanish Inquisition included theism. Islamic suicide bombers include theism as part of what they believe. Is ‘theism’, therefore, the culprit?
How about if you read the quotes of atheist communists in their own words? http://youtu.be/o6zecweP36U
“How about if you read the quotes of atheist communists in their own words?”
These people were, for the most part, atheists. They also believe in things like totalitarianism, which you can’t get to from atheism.
“They also believe in things like totalitarianism, which you can’t get to from atheism.”
You’re kidding, right?
Or is it just a coincidence that atheists are politically on the left, and Statists?
Many, if not the majority, of the atheists I know are libertarians, not left leaning.
I believe you are mistaken about what the word atheism means.
Atheism: the lack of belief in deities
NotAScientist is right, atheism isn’t related to totalitarianism. It’s compatible with it, but then, so is theism. Just look at Hitler. Just as I can’t say Hitler did what he did purely because he was a theist, you can’t say that Stalin did what he did purely because he was an atheist.
The whole argument boils down to you pointing at atheists and saying “look, they’re just as bad as we are!” Well yes. The difference between atheists and theists is one belief. Nobody said anything about the other beliefs atheists are allowed to have. Some atheists are awful people. Doesn’t mean your god exists.
Newspeak. Atheists changed the standard, accepted meaning of atheist into “lacks belief”, which is nonsensical. Do these people who troll and attack Christians get their motivation from lack of belief? Ridiculous. http://stormbringer005.blogspot.com/2011/07/voulez-vous-definir-latheisme-sil-vous.html
“Do these people who troll and attack Christians get their motivation from lack of belief?”
They get it from other beliefs, such as the belief that ‘trolling and attacking people who don’t agree with me is a good idea’.
They don’t get it from atheism.
No one is changing the definition. That has always been the definition. Lack of belief in deities is literally the translation from Greek. Some atheists also believe that there are no gods, but that is not necessary. Do you see see the difference between “I do not believe in gods”, and “I believe there are not gods”? Moving the not makes a world of difference. Most atheists if they are being honest would admit to not believing the second, because it is nonsense. You can’t prove a negative like that unless you can claim omniscience. Most however, would say that they believe that Yahweh, Allah, or Krishna, do not exist. Once you define a god, it is possible to disprove it, mostly through lack of evidence when we would expect some. I think that is probably why you are confused.
Here’s one clear question. How is a lack of belief nonsensical? I don’t believe in unicorns. Is that silly? I also don’t believe that there are not unicorns. I don’t know, maybe there really is life out in the universe, and some of it could be called unicorns. Doesn’t bother me.
The people who “troll and attack” Christianity as you say, are usually acting against what they see as an imbalance in modern society. Religion is such a fundamental part of our culture that lack of belief really is a position that needs to be stated. By contrast, nearly everybody doesn’t believe in unicorns, and so the topic doesn’t come up.
If you’d like to be left alone by non-believers, then you should leave them alone. Very, very few atheists would find the legislation of the end of religion to be moral. You can’t legislate belief. The complaint is that theists try to. Everybody should be free to believe what they want, as long as everybody is also free to talk and debate about it. Unquestioned beliefs never get better.
All I am asking is that religion be as open to questioning as it claims to be, and as open as every other idea in our society. Once that happens, it is live and let live. Once theists stop trying to force their beliefs on others, and we are able to have a civil discussion, the problem evaporates.
The link shows that this is not the case, the standard definition of atheism has been reworked.
This “lack belief” thing is nonsense, even disingenuous. It is a belief claim. If someone “lacks belief” in the Holocaust, are you going to just let that slide?
“Once theists stop trying to force their beliefs on others…”
You gotta be kidding, again! We have Richard “Daffy” Dawkins and other popes of atheism wanting Christianity eradicated. Atheist communists tried to force people to renounce their faith to keep their lives. They closed tens of thousands of churches and other religious buildings.
Who is doing the forcing, really? Atheists are not the noble “live and let live” types that they pretend, militant atheism is detrimental to society.
The unicorn thing is a ridiculously bad red herring. How many millions of people seriously believe in unicorns, and have had their lives changed for the better because of personal encounters with unicorns? How many unicorn colleges teach scientific evidence for unicorns? How many philosophical debates are requested about unicorns?
Did you actually read what I wrote?
That was exactly the point I was making. A-unicorn-ism isn’t a thing, because no one is seriously asserting that unicorns exist, and trying to make laws about it. Atheism is a thing, because people seriously believe in deities, and do try to make laws about them.
Atheists in general would prefer that people justify their beliefs. If you happen to have evidence, and you are willing to question your beliefs, no problem.
Again, I get the impression that you didn’t read what I said. What I have said was that atheists in general do not want to legislate and force the end of religion. Anyone I’ve ever heard advocate for the end of religion believes that the best way to do this is opening religion up to criticism, to which it has long been immune. Let all ideas compete openly on the basis of evidence, and relation to reality, and most atheists are confident that religious ideas will slowly die out.
When I say live and let live, I don’t mean nobody should question anybody else. Just that trying to make your own beliefs have the force of law is a bad idea. It’s an idea that many theists don’t seem to think is bad, just look at Iran, and Saudi Arabia. If you think it’s a good idea, imagine that your own religion isn’t the one that ends up on top. You’ll be branded a heretic as quickly as I will.
You still equated belief in God with belief in unicorns in a backhanded way. And atheists want to suppress the right of Christians to make laws because they are afraid of what we might do, despite your freedoms for thousands of years. Better take it up with the Mohammedans, they don’t want to let you legally be atheists.
The atheist thought police really irritate me.
“Atheists in general would prefer that people justify their beliefs.”
What right do you have to make such requirements? What will you do if we don’t “justify” our beliefs to YOUR subjective satisfaction?
“If you happen to have evidence, and you are willing to question your beliefs, no problem.”
How generous of you. I missed the part where you got the job of making the rules.
“Again, I get the impression that you didn’t read what I said. What I have said was that atheists in general do not want to legislate and force the end of religion.”
Other atheists prove this wrong, as I said.
“Anyone I’ve ever heard advocate for the end of religion believes that the best way to do this is opening religion up to criticism, to which it has long been immune.”
Two unjustified, arbitrary assertions.
“Let all ideas compete openly on the basis of evidence, and relation to reality, and most atheists are confident that religious ideas will slowly die out.”
You want to make dictate how it’s done. Gotcha.
“When I say live and let live, I don’t mean nobody should question anybody else. Just that trying to make your own beliefs have the force of law is a bad idea.”
So, we should fall under the benevolent dictatorships as postulated by, what, Dawkins or Hitchens? Not a chance, we’ve seen what happens when atheists rule.
“It’s an idea that many theists don’t seem to think is bad, just look at Iran, and Saudi Arabia. If you think it’s a good idea, imagine that your own religion isn’t the one that ends up on top. You’ll be branded a heretic as quickly as I will.”
How about leaving bad philosophers like Dawkins alone? You’re just asserting things contrary to reality.
If you don’t agree that beliefs matter, and that there is an objective reality that we can aspire to understand, then we are done. That is all I have suggested, that beliefs should be justified by their relation to reality.
You are appealing to postmodernism and the idea that truth is subjective and thus everything is unknowable. I don’t agree and most atheists probably wouldn’t either. There is a reality whether or not we know what it is.
I’ll leave you here, to wallow in your self-rightousness and confirmation bias. Good day.
“You are appealing to postmodernism and the idea that truth is subjective and thus everything is unknowable.”
So, you end with something that is worse than a Straw Man: An outright lie.
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it – Wikipedia
Also look up the halo effect.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.